Focus on balance process first. balance second.

Dear Relic.

The balance process, to whatever extent there is one, needs serious adjustment. It is painfully obvious that the balance team doesn't know what it is doing. When a buff is given out to a unit in one patch, and then reverted quickly in the next one, it is an obvious sign that something is wrong. And when it happens over and over again, it is even more obvious.

There doesn't even seem to be a basic common sense starting place on balance such as "balance for 1v1 first, then for higher numbers." Why do I say that? OKW munitions income just got nerfed (itself a revert of a previous buff), specifically because 4v4 games were having issues. (Really? Nerf 1v1 because of 4v4? Couldn't you just have adjusted 4v4 instead? You will still have issues, but instead of having them with 4v4 you will now have more with 1v1. Does that make sense?)

I have serious questions as to whether the balance team even plays the game (or if they do, whether they play it enough). The reason I say that is, looking from the outside in (the only way I can view the process), it appears as if they deliver balance edicts born from pure theorycraft from within a locked room without any windows or computers. As a locked room without windows suggests, it appears as if they have little communication with anyone else as to what balance needs to be adjusted, in which direction it should be adjusted, or how a potential adjustment might affect the game.

It appears as if there is little or no testing of patches before they roll out. This is easy to determine because adjustments wouldn't have to be quickly reverted if things were tested adequately, would they?

Furthermore - and I consider this a very serious issue - there are many units that have been completely nerfed out of the game, and the balance team refuses to address those units. I could name all these units, but that would take too long. A case in point would be the wehrmacht flame halftrack. It is a total and complete joke, and everyone knows it. Firstly, it is seriously underpowered as far as dps goes. A friend and I did testing of it and posted the results plus replays showing the tests. A single flame engineer out-dps's it, which is ridiculous. Furthermore, by the time you can get one out tanks are on the field. Yet patch after patch, month after month, eon after eon, the thing just sits there unadjusted.

I can't judge what is in someone's heart or brain. or what goes on in the balance office of Relic. But I can judge by appearances, actions and results. My judgement is therefore that the balance team purposefully nerfs many units out of the game (flame halftrack, etc) because they already have enough trouble doing their jobs, and their jobs are made much easier if they have a small core of units to balance for each faction vs a plethora of them. Well, it might make their lives easier, but that's not my concern as a game player and a paying customer. I'd like to have the game units I paid for to actually be functional, not simply units I build "for the lolz" or to troll an opponent.

In short, the balance process is in need of serious adjustment before any real balance is ever going to be forthcoming. I don't know why they are having the issues they are having, but I suspect there just isn't enough manpower or money being directed towards it.

Stop your attempts at "balance" now. Work on your balance process instead.

Do you need to hire more people? Do it.

Do you need more equipment for testing? Buy more computers, designate a room for "testing," and have your developers write balance testing and simulation code.

Does the balance team not play the game enough? Do it.

Do you not collect enough data? Do it. Hire a statistician while you are at it.

Do you not read forums or talk to people in the community? You should. Now, that is a far cry from saying "implement all balance advice you read on the forums or get from top-tier players," as they all have biases and many of them are idiots to boot. But at least you will be aware of POTENTIAL problems, and POTENTIAL adjustments that may be needed.

In short, get your act together please. This hit-and-miss joke balancing act where you seem to throw darts at a dartboard with a bunch of random balance adjustments pasted to it just isn't working.

This has got my signature on it. Process is important. After the Tiger Ace thing I called it that nothing would change as no lessons were learned from it. Here we are now.

Well, the 20 people in closed testing can only do so much.

3 hours after patch goes live we have incomparably more games played then during all patch testing so... yea, people will find new stuff to abuse and will find it fast.

Give different balance to different game modes: 1v1 - 2v2 - 3v3 - 4v4. WIN

Dear Relic.



Do you need to hire more people? Do it.

Do you need more equipment for testing? Buy more computers, designate a room for "testing," and have your developers write balance testing and simulation code.

Does the balance team not play the game enough? Do it.

Do you not collect enough data? Do it. Hire a statistician while you are at it.

I somewhat agree. It does seem they don't spend nearly enough resources on balance. I'm sure it would be a good investment and if they were better at balancing, they could introduce new paid commanders to earn more money to fund the balance process. Currently I have no dea how they earn money since they're not taking any of mine or anyone else's it seems.



Katitof's point is correct - no matter how much testing they do, there will always be new problems. If they were on the ball and fast, they could fix those too and move forward. But they are so slow


Alos, yeah make the balance team play the game more.

To be honest, the muni nerf was very much needed even in 1v1. It was too easy to get enough panzerschreks out early enough for any soviet medium tank to instantly become a non-threat, even when rushed.

On a side note; There also are not any tanks out by the time a flame halftrack can hit the field. All you need to do is get BP2. Subtracting starting fuel from the total cost, the total fuel threshold to get a flame halftrack is 135 including having build T1. This is still 5 fuel less than the most rushed out soviet halftrack where the soviet go T1->3 and skips both molotovs and AT nades.

+1

Overbuffing and than finaly adjust an unused unit is a valid balance strategy. Because the unit is not used Relic has no Data for it. If they overbuff it, players start to use it massivly, that gives Relic enough Data to balance the unit.

+1 to OP.

Relic also needs to work on their crisis management. We can see this with the Kubel problem. When a game braking balance issue is found they need to revert the unit back to its old stats right away when the problem is found out. If there was no game breaking problem before the patch. So it is easier, and faster to just change it back to its old stats.

This is far better than forcing your players to wait for weeks for a hot patch that man not even fixes the problem enough. Also when a unit is found to be game breaking Relic, you need to take it back to the closed balanced server and try to balance it again. People who paid for your game shouldn't have to test your game unless they are asked to (which if you did the majority of people would). They shouldn't have to give up rank or be forced to play against game braking balance for weeks, so you can see what is going on.That is you balance teams job along with those players you have asked to help.

I am not saying you have to do it alone relic, but you do need to poll more of the wight. CoH 2 is your product, you need to take responsibility for you product, employees and your mistakes.You need to make changes for the betterment of your product and its long term goal (Esports) not just the community.

Back on topic by making this change to your crises management, you will get a few positive changes to the balance processes. First, it will keep your player bases from having a complete and total melt down, like we have been having over the last week or 2. It is scary how lost and angry people are right now and this is not good for the game at all. If you need prof just look to the forums.

Second, it will keep you from just over nerfing the unit in question. A good example of this is the Katusha, which got over nerfed, when it would of been so much better if they just changed it back to it old stats.(PS, on paper and in practice are two different things.)

And, finally it would give your balance team a direction to balance, and what to what for in the future. Lessens to be learned from this patch. A. Mobile MGS are a pain to deal with "cofe" (Maxism had the same problem for a long time). B. USF lack early answers to strong and mobile MGS at the start of the game. C. large patches are a bad thing. Keep it small so you know what the problem is faster, rather than needing to make 2 hotfixes. The same effect of the last patch could of easily been done with small patch of a few weeks, and would of given you a better idea of how each change would effect the whole game first before the nexts game. (Any easy fixes is to just have a patch every thursday that makes one or two changes, or fixes)

Like the post said relic needs to change the balance process first, because the way in which it is done now does nothing then ruin the game, over and over again.In the end it will be up to you relic to change to the needs of your game.

I assure you Peter Qumsieh and co. have a method to their madness. Keep in mind they are paid to think about and adjust balance as their job. So when you are playing other games or sleeping or w/e, they are thinking about how to balance the game better.

It's hard to argue that, today, the game is not better balanced than it was on launch. The number of viable strategies is much higher than it was before. The problem is that the number of viable strategies is still quite low in relation to how many units and abilities are in the game.

With respect to Peter, I think his approach to balancing over-used and underused units and abilities is too conservative. I think he tends to look at underused units as unimportant on the priority list as long as those units don't affect faction W/L ratio. This is why the SU-76 has gone untouched so long. I'm sure they can see from the data that almost nobody builds it, but I think Peter figures that if the unit isn't built and the Soviets can still win, then addressing said unit isn't a high priority.

I completely disagree with this line of thinking. Buffing units that are statistically underused should be at the top of the priority list to make the game more dynamic and fun. If it turns out that a unit was over-buffed, then do a reactionary fix. I'm FINE with that. But I'm not fine with certain units and abilities living in a cellar all their lives. It's like, why even have them in the game if nobody is using them?

What makes an RTS game fun is not only the technical aspect of out-playing your opponent in micro, but also outsmarting him with ingenious tactics. We see this all through real wars... Rommel using 88 flak guns as ad-hoc AT guns in the desert... The US using decoy radio transmissions and inflatable tanks to fool German intel. The Russias using a scorched earth policy to slowly bleed the advancing Germans.

CoH2 is proficient in terms of rewarding technical execution but lacks when it comes to allowing organic and divergent tactics to flower. Currently, with few exceptions, players are punished outright for deviating from standard methods of winning.

When we go back to CoH1, we find that even though there was less "stuff" in the game to balance in terms of units and doctrines, all of it was usable. So I could choose to make Tigers and go armor heavy as Germans, but I could also choose to rely on my infantry with tough bunkers and 88s for defense.

As Americans I could build a Pershing, or I could go with a Calliope or howitzers or strafing runs, and all of this was equally viable if I used it properly.

Whereas look at CoH2. Choosing a doctrine that lacks Shocks/Guards or IS2/ISU is pretty much like taking a hatchet to your chances of winning. So is attempting a build with fewer than three starting Riflemen as Americans.

Players might be playing a "balanced" game, but when the balance comes at the cost of such tactical restriction, balance becomes a secondary issue to the lack of strategic variety in your strategy game.

Regards,
ZR

When we go back to CoH1, we find that even though there was less "stuff" in the game to balance in terms of units and doctrines, all of it was usable.

USF Mortar
Sherman crocodile
Quad

Churchill flamer

USF Mortar
Sherman crocodile
Quad

Churchill flamer

US Mortar - If the US mortar ever got to vet 2, it would generally get to vet 3 because it was an absolute killing machine. Getting to vet 2 was pretty hard though.

Sherman Croc - How else are you going to troll your opponents?

Quad - A fringe unit that's sometimes (rarely) useful against PE.

Churchill flamer - You got me there. At least the AVRE is fun to use.

Dear Relic.

The balance process, to whatever extent there is one, needs serious adjustment. It is painfully obvious that the balance team doesn't know what it is doing. When a buff is given out to a unit in one patch, and then reverted quickly in the next one, it is an obvious sign that something is wrong. And when it happens over and over again, it is even more obvious.

There doesn't even seem to be a basic common sense starting place on balance such as "balance for 1v1 first, then for higher numbers." Why do I say that? OKW munitions income just got nerfed (itself a revert of a previous buff), specifically because 4v4 games were having issues. (Really? Nerf 1v1 because of 4v4? Couldn't you just have adjusted 4v4 instead? You will still have issues, but instead of having them with 4v4 you will now have more with 1v1. Does that make sense?)

I have serious questions as to whether the balance team even plays the game (or if they do, whether they play it enough). The reason I say that is, looking from the outside in (the only way I can view the process), it appears as if they deliver balance edicts born from pure theorycraft from within a locked room without any windows or computers. As a locked room without windows suggests, it appears as if they have little communication with anyone else as to what balance needs to be adjusted, in which direction it should be adjusted, or how a potential adjustment might affect the game.

It appears as if there is little or no testing of patches before they roll out. This is easy to determine because adjustments wouldn't have to be quickly reverted if things were tested adequately, would they?

Furthermore - and I consider this a very serious issue - there are many units that have been completely nerfed out of the game, and the balance team refuses to address those units. I could name all these units, but that would take too long. A case in point would be the wehrmacht flame halftrack. It is a total and complete joke, and everyone knows it. Firstly, it is seriously underpowered as far as dps goes. A friend and I did testing of it and posted the results plus replays showing the tests. A single flame engineer out-dps's it, which is ridiculous. Furthermore, by the time you can get one out tanks are on the field. Yet patch after patch, month after month, eon after eon, the thing just sits there unadjusted.

I can't judge what is in someone's heart or brain. or what goes on in the balance office of Relic. But I can judge by appearances, actions and results. My judgement is therefore that the balance team purposefully nerfs many units out of the game (flame halftrack, etc) because they already have enough trouble doing their jobs, and their jobs are made much easier if they have a small core of units to balance for each faction vs a plethora of them. Well, it might make their lives easier, but that's not my concern as a game player and a paying customer. I'd like to have the game units I paid for to actually be functional, not simply units I build "for the lolz" or to troll an opponent.

In short, the balance process is in need of serious adjustment before any real balance is ever going to be forthcoming. I don't know why they are having the issues they are having, but I suspect there just isn't enough manpower or money being directed towards it.

Stop your attempts at "balance" now. Work on your balance process instead.

Do you need to hire more people? Do it.

Do you need more equipment for testing? Buy more computers, designate a room for "testing," and have your developers write balance testing and simulation code.

Does the balance team not play the game enough? Do it.

Do you not collect enough data? Do it. Hire a statistician while you are at it.

Do you not read forums or talk to people in the community? You should. Now, that is a far cry from saying "implement all balance advice you read on the forums or get from top-tier players," as they all have biases and many of them are idiots to boot. But at least you will be aware of POTENTIAL problems, and POTENTIAL adjustments that may be needed.

In short, get your act together please. This hit-and-miss joke balancing act where you seem to throw darts at a dartboard with a bunch of random balance adjustments pasted to it just isn't working.

+ 1 !!!!!!!!!!!!

USF Mortar
Sherman crocodile
Quad

Churchill flamer

Wehrmacht Officer? (apart from Chains in "the Beast")

PE munitions wagon? ( I saw Complexity use this recently - it dropped one mine and was then blown up)

Back to an interesting topic.

Every suggestion you are making will cost relic a lot of money. Who is going to give it to them? You? Why they should do any of this stuff when they could instead work on their new SP campaign for $$$?

^^ ^^


Numbers?

If they lose numbers, the cost will be even higher....

I wouldn't care to make such assumptions about how Relic does balance. We don't really know what the process is like, and some of the things you suggest are a bit unreasonable given that they have real, significant, monetary costs attached to them.

That said, there are some things that would be nice. A kind of 'PBE' environment where players (possibly a limited population, but larger than current testers) could try out suggested balance solutions. This would hopefully curb some of the more drastic and stupid balance changes by exposing the flaws before they go live. I believe that Relic actually said on-stream a while ago that they were looking into this, but naturally its gonna take time and may not be feasible at all.

More developer communication about balance would also be really nice. For me, the 'gold standard' for communication is Riot Games - they have a constant developer presence on forums, run AMAs on Reddit and make regular blog posts about balance/game design issues. All this stuff is very much appreciated by players such as myself, and at the very least creates a channel for developers to reassure the community that they are aware of and looking into balance issues. However, I fear that since our community is pretty hostile toward Relic a lot of the time (this thread is an example),they probably don't want to interact with us any more than is necessary.

However, I fear that since our community is pretty hostile toward Relic a lot of the time (this thread is an example),they probably don't want to interact with us any more than is necessary.

I believe that the hostility is there due a lack of transparency on Relic's side about what is going on.

War Spoils is a perfect example, they could have explained why duplicates dropped and that the feature wasn't complete on Day 1 of WFA however they waited nearly a month to explain the situation.

In the meantime the community could only assume Relic's intent with the feature because they had very little information to understand how the system worked.

Just leaving the player base in the dark and hoping they'll buy your DLC / expansions on goodwill isn't going to work when that goodwill is exhausted due to the game running poorly since WFA and loads of new bugs being added to the game with every patch with no solid commitment from Relic that they will fix these issues that make the game so painful to play right now.

...............

More developer communication about balance would also be really nice. For me, the 'gold standard' for communication is Riot Games - they have a constant developer presence on forums, run AMAs on Reddit and make regular blog posts about balance/game design issues. All this stuff is very much appreciated by players such as myself, and at the very least creates a channel for developers to reassure the community that they are aware of and looking into balance issues. However, I fear that since our community is pretty hostile toward Relic a lot of the time (this thread is an example),they probably don't want to interact with us any more than is necessary.

i only wish to take issue (slightly) with you, over your assertion that this thread (in particular) and the community is pretty hostile to Relic "a lot of the the time" I do agree that the perceived community can be hostile, but (IMO) most, in fact, are not. It is the vociferous minority who "bend" the outlook of the board. I highly doubt if the Official Forums are very different (though I am open to persuasion). FWIW, I consider this thread to be a particularly carefully expressed thread, free of the usual nonsensical infighting from most Balance threads. But that is subjective, and we may have to agree to disagree

I also think that this community has to hold up its hands more to balancing: I am a believer in transparency, where possible. Therefore,if a balancing team from this community has misled Relic (innocently or otherwise) to a poor Balance solution, this should be made plain.